@SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
Prospective astros owner Jim crane has agreed to go to AL in 2013. He gets about $50M discount to go. He still needs vote of owners
MLB: Astros tentatively scheduled move to AL in 2013
- Thread starter cyman05
- Start date
@SI_JonHeyman Jon Heyman
Prospective astros owner Jim crane has agreed to go to AL in 2013. He gets about $50M discount to go. He still needs vote of owners
This is a move that needs to happen for divisional balance in the MLB. As it stands each team in the NL East/West and AL East/Central have a 20% chance of winning their respective divisions each year while in the AL West they have a 25% chance. In the NL Central each team has a 16.67% chance of winning. This move is not only good for the Astros but its good for the other 5 teams in the NL Central and all of baseball. Sure it does hurt the 4 teams in the current AL West but as far as fairness goes, this just makes sense. Also the Rangers/Astros rivalry will benefit greatly from this move, should it happen.
Unless they just go to having an inter-league series every week of the year, which they will probably have to do.
I was hoping they'd add two western AL teams (Portland, Vegas, San Jose, Utah, somewhere in Mexico, etc.) and move the Rangers to the AL Central to make it 16-16 to avoid this issue yet keep divisional balance. That would also put the Rangers with the central time zone teams in the AL.
Expansion seems out of the question, though...
I agree, but like the idea of a balanced number of teams in the leagues. This basically means there will always need to be at least one interleague game almost every day. The down side is the end of the season. A team from the other league could have a magnified impact on a penant race.
If scheduling were the only issue it would make sense to expand, add 2 more teams and go to four divisions of four teams in each league. Unfortunately there are many more factors that would prevent that.
Last edited:
Agreed. I don't see how they can stay with the current scheduling system. You'd have two teams off every day. It either makes for a lot of doubleheaders through the season or have interleague throughout the entire year.
Interleague the best option.
Especially when, a decade ago, MLB wanted to contract two teams, and if they had their way (no union interference), this is clearly the route they'd still want to go.
So some # of years ago, they throw the Brewers into the NL and also add the Marlins & Rockies to the NL and now they're upset because the Central is unbalenced? I mean... is there ANY long term business planning by the jokes that run these leagues or is it all knee jerk reactions that line their pockets the fastest?
As a Cubs fan, I always found it somewhat unfair the NL Central had 6 teams, but most years the average Central team has been so bad it canceled things out anyway. More than anything it takes away the advantage the AL West teams have.
It certainly makes scheduling impossible if the interleague stuff isn't changed, but assuming they do change it it'll make scheduling a lot easier. Equal teams per division and equal teams per league make for a much more consistent schedule from team to team.
It certainly makes scheduling impossible if the interleague stuff isn't changed, but assuming they do change it it'll make scheduling a lot easier. Equal teams per division and equal teams per league make for a much more consistent schedule from team to team.
Sample schedule:
Same division: 4 teams * 18 games = 72
Diff div, same league: 10 teams * 6 games = 60
Diff league: 5 teams (from one division) * 6 games = 30
Total: 162 games
Same division: 4 teams * 18 games = 72
Diff div, same league: 10 teams * 6 games = 60
Diff league: 5 teams (from one division) * 6 games = 30
Total: 162 games
